Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70mm Opening in York (UK)

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » 70mm Opening in York (UK) (Page 3)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: 70mm Opening in York (UK)

Larry Shaw
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 238
From: Boston, MA, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 10-04-2002 05:17 PM

The FP-75E at the Dome was ordered without a mag reproducer (not just the head, the whole mechanism) as it was assumed that anything coming out would be DTS. Then a rush order was placed for a reproducer for "Larry ND Sand". I don't know if someone thought DTS wouldn't be available or what.

------------------
Larry Shaw
Kinoton America
[Exclusive North American Distributor of Kinoton GmbH]
8 Goodenough Street
Boston, MA 02135-1903
Tel: 617-562-0003 x104 Fax: 617-787-4253
E-Mail: larry@kinotonamerica.com
Website:http://www.kinotonamerica.com

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 10-04-2002 05:46 PM

Karen wrote:

quote:
I suppose you could have DTS timecode and have some mag tracks. The problem is that the timecode covers up the space where 3 of the mag tracks reside. The timecode (on DTS 70mm prints) is placed between the perfs and the film's edge. This allows the picture to accomidate the entire space between perfs.

Does this mean that the projected image has dimensions somewhat larger than the SMPTE standard of 1.912 x .870 (2.198:1) or the SMPTE RP65 revised standard of 1.91235 x .800 (2.391:1)?

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 10-04-2002 05:55 PM

I thought the SMPTE standard for projection would be the same, regardless if mag tracks were there or not, since that is the maximum image the filmmakers were expecting to be shown. From what I've seen on the web with the SMPTE alignment film, the film would still have to be cropped to get rid of the corner curves on the film, and examples of mag tracking show that very little more than that is lost with the stripes.

By the way, only two mag tracks (one wide mag stripe) lie between the sprockets and the outside edge of the film.

| IP: Logged

Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 10-05-2002 10:39 AM

SMPTE RP65 is intended as a guideline for enlargements and reductions. Its purpose is to maintain the projectable image aspect ratio of the original format on the release format.

ANSI/SMPTE 152 specifies the projectable image area of 70-mm release prints. That standard is still valid without magnetic audio records.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-06-2002 07:02 AM

There had been some discussion of increasing the width of the 70mm projected image area slightly. But even if there are no stripes, it could be problematic as some projectors "touched" this area, with the possibility of causing minor abrasions that would be seen if the wider area was projected. Plus you have the "legacy" of the current 2.2:1 aspect ratio going back almost 50 years.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 10-06-2002 11:21 AM

Make it optional.

Presuming a 65mm camera protects that area adjust the standard so that the extra area can be included in 35mm Scope reductions, reducing or eliminating the vertical crop. Finders should be marked with both widths.

On the projection end, it should be easy to assemble lists of projectors (or gate/trap designs for each) that can use the wider aperture and those that cannot. A new 65mm-originated film composed to the new standard or a 35mm anamorphic blowup (that would otherwise lose the sides anyway) could be marked for wider projection. A legacy title should probably stick to the old ratio. A Super 35 blowup could go either way, depending on how the blowup was done. Theatres with a scratch-free projector would just keep two aperture plates with the admonition only to use the wider one on prints specifically marked as being compatible with that aperture.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-06-2002 03:09 PM

The problem is that if the edges of the wider image were slightly abraded by some projectors, it would be difficult to assure that the prints were not sent to those theatres.

It would be interesting to do a survey by examining existing 70mm prints to see if that area is indeed abraded by some projectors. I agree that it would be very useful to allow a wider aspect ratio, especially with 35mm "scope" blow-ups.

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 10-07-2002 01:19 PM

A good point which I overlooked but as everyone would still be obligated to honor the old standard if the print had abrasions they'd notice it on the test run and change plates and masking settings for the actual run. I take the liberty of presuming a test run before opening with a 70mm print!

I hope we're not just rearranging the deck chairs...

| IP: Logged

Karen Hultgren
Master Film Handler

Posts: 492
From: Agoura Hills, CA, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 10-07-2002 03:54 PM

Part of the reason to do DTS on 70mm is to reduce costs. It would not make ecomonic sense to mag stripe (even only 2 stripes) and do DTS timecode. It is technically possible but I doubt anyone would do it.

Karen at DTS
khultgren@dtsonline.com

| IP: Logged

Darren Briggs
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: York, UK
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 10-08-2002 05:28 AM

Info on the 70mm install in York.(U.K.) is on this superb website... www.in70mm.com
The above site is run by fellow film-techer Thomas Hauerslev.

Darren

| IP: Logged

Darren Briggs
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: York, UK
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 10-13-2002 06:05 PM

Just an update on this topic.
I opened my 70mm installation with 'Lawrence Of Arabia' today to a sell out audience (226) and all went amazingly well!

Had a introduction talk on the origins of 70mm and had many people asking afterwards when the next show was. (Spartacus 3rd Nov)
Had to turn people away for today but we are trying to re-screen 'Lawrence' either next sunday or in early Dec if we can keep the print till then.

Darren

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 10-14-2002 02:03 AM

Congratulations on a brilliant show, Darren, and also to Justin and Charlie.

Now if only you could show nitrate...

| IP: Logged

Dick Vaughan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1032
From: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 10-15-2002 02:48 AM

Darren

Sorry couldn't make it across but sounds as though all went wonderfully..

Perhaps I can make it for Spartacus.

| IP: Logged

Darren Briggs
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: York, UK
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 10-15-2002 06:11 AM

Dick thers always a ticket for you or any of your porjectionist.
Were re-screening lawrence on the 14th Dec due to so many people being turned away!
So im in the middle of re-advertising Lawrence along with Spartacus.

Heres a question fot you Dick. can you play U-Matic video tapes, ive got hold of a lawrence trailer on it but i cant play umatic.

Cya again soon
Darren

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 10-15-2002 06:44 AM

I can - PAL, lo or high band or UMatic SP. Assuming the rights owner has no problem with us doing the transfer, I can put it on DVD from a UMatic for you. Give me a bell if interested. Sorry to be anal, but I would need written permission from Columbia (or whoever the UK rights owner to the trailer is) in order to do you the copy. Given that it's to publicise a show that they'd make money out of, I wouldn't have thought that they'd object.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.